As far back as his January state of the union adrress, president Bush stated as a fact, Sadam had and I quote, " Gone to great lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction." end quote.

In his March 17 statement where he set the 48 hour deadline for Sadam to go, quote, "Sadam still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his ability to have more." end quote.

Planning of the this invasion has included great resources dedicated to find these weapons, teams and mobile labs moving with the troops are scouring the place for any evidence.

What have they found so far? The Marines dug up a school yard 50 miles east of the capital on a tip from a captive Iraqi, they found nothing. Someone reported a strange vial of white powder that turned out to be legal explosives. The most promising find so far were some large drums of a toxic substance that has turned out to pesticides.

What if nothing is ever found? How can Bush ever explain away disrupting a legal " inspection process that obviously was working if no WMD is found? Splitting the Western alliance on false evidence?

If Bush gets the credit for liberating Iraq, he should take responsibility for invading a nation on false and fabricated evidence.

Of course they know this and are already preparing a defense.
They will say Sadam snuck all the WMD out of the country.
Then we can invade another nation!

Darth Groovy

04-10-2003, 09:10 AM

Yes, but what about the tortured prisoners, and all the bodies they found. I think the USA was premature for attacking Iraq too, but I also think Saddam was a sadist.

True, no weapons of mass destruction were found, not yet. I honestly do not think he had any. Saddam had to go, but he was smart by staying below the radar, and avoiding investigation. However, he did need to go. The only thing that disturbs me, is that they are now without control or Government, what now?

Also, Saddam is not the only dictator in the middle east. I hope Gee Dubya doesnt get a second wind and go after them too. I want those troops to just finish up and get the hell out of there.

Breton

04-10-2003, 09:19 AM

If they do not find any WoMDs in Iraq, Bush has made war on false reasons, he has also lied to his people and to the whole world. If there is no WoMDs in Iraq, the only right thing for Bush to do would be to resign.

ioshee

04-10-2003, 10:26 AM

Hypothetical Situation:

There are two kingdoms. One is red and one is blue. The king of the blue kingdom knows that the king of the red kingdom is cruel to his subjects. The blue king also suspects with good reason that the red king is planning to attack the blue kingdom. So the blue king sends his knights over to the red kingdom and takes out the red king. The people in the red kingdom are soooo happy and grateful (even though they are prejudice against blue people.) However no evidence is found that the red king was going to attack. The people in the blue kingdom are furious because they never liked their king anyway so they crucify him. The people in the red kingdom are very surprised but they don’t really care because now they are free and they never liked the way the blue king looked anyway.

Sorry I’m getting off into fairyland.

My point is that people who never liked Bush are looking for any fault he has. They assume that he “lied” and “deceived” people so that he could invade Iraq. That doesn’t fit the situation because he has never been too concerned with public opinion about the invasion or proving to people that there is reason to invade. It’s more likely that he honestly believes there are (or was) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. People who don’t like Bush make him out to be this person who manipulated people into letting him invade Iraq. Why would he want to invade Iraq for no reasons whatsoever?

daring dueler

04-10-2003, 04:19 PM

thats actually a good point

El Sitherino

04-10-2003, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by ioshee
Why would he want to invade Iraq for no reasons whatsoever? maybe to scare people. or maybe because he wanted to. also i think if they don't find WoMD that he will have some people sneak in some and claim them as Iraq's. I liked bush when he first started his election campaign in 98 he said some realistic things that were nice but then when he gave his arguments against gore i found him to be an utter and complete idiot with a huge ego and passion to kill/hurt.

griff38

04-13-2003, 10:25 AM

Iam still waiting, where are the tons of WMD? A few traces here and there is not going to cut it.

Of course the excuses are already being prepared. 1rst they said, well maybe Sadam snuck the WMD out of the country while we were busy attacking. Sneaky bastard.

Or the latest Rumsfeld excuse, "the looters are stealing the WMD and we never will find it!"

Come On!

Eldritch

04-13-2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by griff38
Iam still waiting, where are the tons of WMD?
North Korea. :D
Bush may have just been using Iraq as a warm up. If so, we're in real trouble.

El Sitherino

04-13-2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Eldritch
North Korea. :D
Bush may have just been using Iraq as a warm up. If so, we're in real trouble. yeah. im gonna get a huge lead plated bomb shelter if bush declares war on korea.

Darth Groovy

04-13-2003, 11:25 AM

Well those 50 suicide vests they found in that school disturbs me even more.

Kind of unrelated, but I did not vote for Bush. I don't believe I ever will. He was a horrible governer, and yes, he is brash and arogant, not the kind of person I look up too. And don't get me started on that Dick, Chaney...

Luc Solar

04-13-2003, 01:07 PM

You can say "dick" without it getting censored? :eek: :confused:

Dick?

DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK-DICK!! HAHAHA!

...DICK!

*giggles*

Umm.. so yeah..what am I, 5? :o Jesus..

Anyways.. like, where are the WOMD's? :confused: That was the reason for this whole war.

I bet these weapons have been shipped into Syria, North Korea, Afganistan (come one..there's got to be something left to bomb there!), Cuba and... who else do we got? Russia and China? O.o. :eek:

Seriously, I really hope they find huge amounts of WOMD's in Iraq. This war, all the killing, needs a reason. No matter what happens, this will remain a political disaster for the US, but.. man... if they don't find ANY weapons of mass destruction.. that would make 'em look really, really bad. :(

DICK!

*snicker*

C'jais

04-13-2003, 02:29 PM

I just read on the plane back from Madrid that USA has found some evidence of chemical weapons during a routine check in an airport. It was something like 24 baseball-bat sized warheads which they suspected contained a nervegas.

Still, it feels somewhat a hollow basis for going to war. Let's be frank here - how many middle east nations have got that few warheads just for protection? How many in the western world?

Had he used them during the period from the end of the gulf war to this war, or even during this war I could have spotted the hazy justification that Bush used.

But the moral high ground is looking like a muddy pile of compost dung to me, with recycled threats from a decade ago and homebrewed terror connections and documentation.

Yet, for the time being, it's a solid humanitarian victory to see Saddam's brutal police state collapse. What remains is to see whether the people will actually be able to live in the democracy promised and what impact this war will have on the world.

Luc Solar

04-13-2003, 03:01 PM

BTW - what happened to that huge camouflaged factory of WOMD's in the desert?

Any info about that? Anyone?

Darth Groovy

04-13-2003, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Luc Solar
You can say "dick" without it getting censored?

Well, it is his name isn't it?

Breton

04-13-2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Luc Solar
BTW - what happened to that huge camouflaged factory of WOMD's in the desert?

Any info about that? Anyone?

A political joke. The British defense minister (I think) had to go out himself and say it was false.

Reborn Outcast

04-13-2003, 04:34 PM

You guys actually think that the sole reason for invasion was WMDs? How about removing a regime that should have been long gone...

Luc Solar

04-13-2003, 05:35 PM

WOMD's.

That's what it was all about. "No more time for the weapons inspectors! Saddam is lying and hiding the WOMD's! Saddam is a threat ot the US because he has WOMD's!"

That's why the US attacked. The rest of the world said "You can't attack without proof. Let the weapon instructors do their job. etc. etc."

How many countries in the world does not approve of the US goverment or Bush particularly? I'd guess about half of them. Do these 80 countries give the US an ultimatum "Get out, Bush..or we'll **** up your country!"

No. You just don't do that. This is not a western, it's real life. You don't attack a country because you don't like it's leader, especially without the permission of a helluva lot of countries and the UN.

The feeble basis of the whole operation was "disarming Saddam" because he "is a threat to the US".

If we now find out that Saddam did NOT have any WOMD's, that Iraq was NOT a threat to the US.... oh boy. :( shame-shame...

If all that I stated above was/is untrue or not the real reason then it's all the more disgusting. Oil? A personal disapproval of the president of Iraq? You don't slaughter tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people because of that.

Seriously, dear Americans: IT'S NOT YOUR GOD DAMN BUSINESS!

According to 100% of all international law experts, what the USA did was grossly illegal. Illegal and disapproved of by the UN and most countries (besides Afganistan, Israel and Ologa-Bologa-Island.)

If Iraq was not a threat to you, what on earth are you guys doing there???? Some ulterior motive, perhaps? :rolleyes:

I'm so confused.

About the camouflaged factory >> a pretty nice trick, I must say. An ANONYMOUS source from the Pentagon conveniently leaks this information at a crucial point of the war. :disaprove I guess Bush felt like the war needed a justification so that at least some protestor would start thinking that he might be doing te right thing.
Worked like a charm, didn't it? Bought the US a few more days to get their war going. Probably half of you Americans still think that they have found a WOMD factory totally proving that Bush was right all along.

But we'll see.... who get's the contracts, who gets the money, who gets the oil, who appoints a nice, friendly US-biased goverment..

I hope I'm being way to cynical.

Zodiac

04-13-2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
You guys actually think that the sole reason for invasion was WMDs? How about removing a regime that should have been long gone...
That regime should've been long gone yes, I agree on you with that. But my main point now is: If THAT was/is one of the main reasons to go to war, then prepare for a future with coming decades of war, because that Iraqi regime isn't the only one on this planet that's evil. Now this might be a start of coming years of global warfare with the US army (with the help of others of course) ' freeing' all nations with such evil regimes, but it is scary to think of the consequences such future wars will have (eg. more death, nuclear warfare, chemical warfare, etc).

Let me explain it like Ioshee's fairyland situation: Hypothetical Situation:
There are two kingdoms. One is red and one is blue. The king of the blue kingdom knows that the king of the red kingdom is cruel to his subjects

That is what ioshee wrote. Problem is that in the "real" world, the red kingdom isn't the only one with a king that is cruel to its subjects. There is also a purple kingdom, a pink kingdom, a green kingdom and a grey kingdom with kings who are cruel to their subjects. So if the blue kingdom decides to attack the red kingdom just because it has an evil king, why should blue only attack red? Are the red people more special than the other ones? I don't think so.
Perhaps the blue king doesn't actually care much about the red kingdom's people, and the blue king only attacked red because of some natural resources the red country has... *cough*..

And if the Blue king says he attacked Red, because he thinks Red threatens him, then he's a bit unaware of the situation, because the Purple king is most likely a bigger threat with his newly built long range catapults.

griff38

04-13-2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
You guys actually think that the sole reason for invasion was WMDs? How about removing a regime that should have been long gone...

Well, Bush didn't mention regime change until very late in the game. And to the best of my knowledge never said anything about "liberating" opressed people until the war was almost started.
If this was the main reason or even secondary, why did they not say it from the begining? If Bush had said a year ago "the Iraqi people are opressed and need our help." Alot more of us would be supportive.
I have never heard a single person say, "lets' keep Sadam!" Of course everybody with 2 brain cells to rub together is glad he is gone.

But the Bush admin didn't ever use humanitarian concerns to invade untill the last moment.
It is a total PR ploy. If Bush gave a damn we would have been better prepared to deal with the riots and unlawfulness that has always occured at the end of a war. We had tons of military MP's (military police) ready for such events in the Gulf war, why not this time?

SkinWalker

04-14-2003, 12:20 AM

Weapons of Mass Destruction will be found in Iraq.

Even if they weren't there during the war.

If I were Darth Rumsfeld, I'd ship over some of our own WMD's that were scheduled for destruction and bury them in the desert. Then I'd have an Iraqi agent leak the location to BBC or some other press agency. Then assign a special ops group to accompany the reporters on "their" lead.

This was never a war about WMDs. Nor was it about the oppressed peoples. It was, and is, about economic control of the region. The West has been attempting to control intrests in the Middle East for hundreds of years. Before oil, it was about trade routes. Today, it's probably both.

If it were about oppression, we would have sent SOMEone into the Congo after nearly 1000 (that's a "1" followed by three zeros!) men, women and children were massacred in the span of a couple of hours.

If it were about oppression, we would have stayed the course in Somalia, where warlords control the economy and people died, and are still dying, of starvation because of it.

If it were about oppression, we would go into Chechnya and "liberate" the civilians there who are being denied medicine, food, shelter, clothing, and education by the Russians.

If it were about oppression, we would pressure the corporations that exploit the labor of women and children in periphery nations and regions such as Indonesia to pay a minimum, FAIR wage with SAFE working conditions.

If it were about oppression, we would assist the Zapatistas in Mexico, who are unable to defend themselves against death squads that call themselves "Peace and Justice" brigades.

Then again.... maybe all these places are on the list.

Luc Solar

04-14-2003, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by Zodiac
So if the blue kingdom decides to attack the red kingdom just because it has an evil king, why should blue only attack red?

And >>

1) What if the blue king thinks that the red kingdom worships a false god?

2) What if the blue king thinks that the red kingdom is not being fair by putting custom tariffs on blue products?

3) What if the red kingdom sells catapults to Gray kingdom but not to blue.

4) What if the red kingdom is not a democracy ruled by a king, but instead by some strange religious cult?

Well... 1) The red kingdom must be crushed and their religion abolished. They're worhipping a wrong god and their evil thoughts have been getting followers in the blue kingdom as well. To protect what is Right and Our kingdom, we must attack!

2) The red kingdom is hampering the economic growth of blue kingdom. For the sake of our motherland we must attack and force blue kingdom to drop the tariffs.

3) The Gray kingdom becomes a threat 'cause they have catapults. To protect ourselves we must attack Grey Kingdom and steal..*cough* destroy the catapults. We must also attack red kingdom so that they'll never sell catapults or at least not to anyone but blue kingdom... oh yea: in order to protect our freedom.

4) A democracy ruled by a king is the only right way. Any other form of governance is just not right. The people of red kingdom must be oppressed because they don't have identical rights to ours. We must attack and appoint a new goverment that resembles ours and shares & enforces our values, because they're the only ones that can/should exist.

We, the Blue Kingdom are the good guys. We are just doing what's right in the eyes of God. Just protecting our country, that's all...

mr116

04-24-2003, 08:12 PM

Look, i could be stupidly optimistic in our government, but i am pretty sure that the US of A would not invade another foreign, sovereign country without just cause. First, there is no logic to it. There is no point to gain by taking down Iraq, unless they do (or did :) ) post a threat to the world. The people were living in a police state, for crying out loud! There were government rape-rooms!!! I think that the US is justified, regardless of whether there are WMD's or not... and I do think that there were, and i think it is perfectly possible that they are in syria.

CagedCrado

04-30-2003, 09:53 PM

They found plenty of dirty materials there, and plain and simply the opression of the people of iraq was definetly reason enough.

Breton

04-30-2003, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by mr116
There is no point to gain by taking down Iraq, unless they do (or did :) ) post a threat to the world.

There are other reasons for it too.... *cough*oil*cough*

And of course, Dubya want revenge for the last war.

The people were living in a police state, for crying out loud!

Many people does. And some of these countries are even supported by USA.

There were government rape-rooms!!!

Do you really think there were?

Think about it: Have you seen any footage of it? Have you seen any pictures of these rooms that can make sure these room are gov rape rooms?

Or is the whole thing just something the media feeds you.

They found plenty of dirty materials there, and plain and simply the opression of the people of iraq was definetly reason enough.

They did find some pesticides, but I do not believe those are illegal according to UN ;) .

SkinWalker

05-01-2003, 04:38 AM

Regardless of what is found, might have been found, or could be found, the point remains that there was NO evidence prior to the invasion.

I see a lot of justification going on both with politicians and the citizenry who want to believe in their leaders. "Saddam was obviously a bad guy/evil dude/Hitler II/ etc. and the Iraqi people were oppressed/tortured/beaten/raped/robbed/tickled/what-have-you."
The problem with these justifications is that they are valid for just about anything but invasion. They are valid reasons for embargo, sanction, inadmittance to world/regional organizations, and for not sending an invitation to the Christmas party. But you can't invade a nation for having a bad leader.

If that were the standard (and it just may now be), then that would mean that the United States must now involve itself in every instance of equal or greater oppression.

I certainly hope no one here thinks that Saddam was the most/only oppressive ruler of his time. There have been many of his caliber, there are some now, and there will be more in the future.

Now, the U.S. government has analysts and think tank gurus that are aware of all this. They also realize that precedent of this type could be bad. They're obviously gambling that the world in general will buy the Bush admin.'s reason(s) for invasion (which, interestingly enough, appear to have evolved/morphed somewhat from 2001). In so doing, they will quietly forget to bring military attention to other oppressive regimes that could use some change.

So what would be the payoff worth this type of gamble?

Answer: "Economic control of the region." Oil.

Does everyone really think it's coincidence that both the President and Vice-President have strong ties to the American Oil Industry. Dick was the CEO of Halliburton Oil. This same company stands to make almost $500 million in oil field work in Iraq after being awarded a contract that was "without competition" so says USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2003-04-10-halliburton_x.htm)

I'm not "bashing" the U.S. as some here have suggested in the past. Quite the contrary. But I am "bashing" Emperor Bush and Darth Rumsfeld :p

Cosmos Jack

05-01-2003, 04:52 AM

Isn't every war at the end of all the good deeds and bad at the very core just about economics?

Zodiac

05-01-2003, 01:01 PM

Very nice post Skinwalker. Thumbs up there for the explanation.

C'jais

05-01-2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Isn't every war at the end of all the good deeds and bad at the very core just about economics?

Pretty much. It plays a big role anyway.

When countries go to war, they must carefully analyze the loss and gain of it. If financial ruin is the economic result of it, there must be some other gain outcome, even if it that can mean stability in the area, or the world.

Often, though, the economic reasons are valued the heaviest. And it looks like it will stay this way for a long time.

But why is this so bad? When USA helped us win WW2, they weren't doing it for our blue eye's sake. They were afraid to get raped as well, and had an economic partner in England. And look what came of it - by and large it was all good.

mr116

05-08-2003, 08:25 PM

I do strongly think that the right to invade a nation is part of national sovreignty... If the leaders of our country think that that is in the best interest of anything (world peace, or even our oil reserves) then they have the right to do what they see fit, since we as a nation did elect them.

Breton

05-08-2003, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by mr116
I do strongly think that the right to invade a nation is part of national sovreignty... If the leaders of our country think that that is in the best interest of anything (world peace, or even our oil reserves) then they have the right to do what they see fit, since we as a nation did elect them.

Does this mean that Russia has every right to invade Finland if they see it fit? Does this mean that Norway has every right to invade Sweden if they see it fit? Does this mean that Canada has every right to invade USA if they see it fit?

What's the difference?

Dagobahn Eagle

05-08-2003, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Breton
Does this mean that Russia has every right to invade Finland if they see it fit? Does this mean that Norway has every right to invade Sweden if they see it fit? Does this mean that Canada has every right to invade USA if they see it fit?

First thing that'll happen is that according to NATO, USA will declare war on Norway, Russia, and Canada, for invading other NATO members (Norway and Canada, obviously, are no longer allies of the NATO nations, not Finland, Sweden, and the USA, at least). Russia doesn't have allies.

So it'd be (at least):

Aggressors:
Norway
Russia
Canada
If these aggressors have a damned good reasons for their suicidal invasion, maybe one or two other nations will join.

Most likely, the three agressors would ally, and Russia does have nukes, but we would eventually lose to the USA and NATO, maybe after taking Sweden and/or Finland, and temporarily occupying some US cities.

Similarily, if Iraq and China had a mutual protection treaty, the USA couldn't have invaded them without setting off a war with China, which most likely would also involve NATO, countries neighbouring China like Taiwan and Japan, and countries neighbouring Iraq like Israel. It'd be really close to a World War.

See my point? We've got allies, Iraq didn't. The USA, thus, had absolute power to invade them, as the president doesn't even require Congress approval to invade someone (:mad:).

So if the USA wants to invade someone, it's not their right, but they simply have the power to refuse to give a damned crap, so they don't.

I do strongly think that the right to invade a nation is part of national sovreignty...
I do have some very good questions for you then:

If you don't care about international treaties, why did you sign them?
If you don't care about the UN, why did you not just join, but also have the UN HQ built in the States?
If you believe in sovereignity and every country doing whatever the heck it pleases, why do you come up with treaties and vote for many of those that others in the UN come up with for other nations?
When you say it's okay since the people wants to do it: What makes you think it's right just because the people want it? You may say that the governmnent represent the people, but in this case, it's just as much the other way around: The people have been swayed by the government.

Zodiac

05-08-2003, 10:19 PM

The response of an egocentric, arrogant and ignorant american would be: "The difference is that our government is the best there is, and they're always right when it comes to tough and big decisions (because of the vast amount of information they get). And I trust them completely, otherwise me and my fellow americans would not have elected them."

*p u k e*. :rolleyes:

Fortunately, not all americans are like that.
Unfortunately, some are! :mad:

Originally posted by Wilhuf
Those crying deception have themselves deceived.

If you actually read the article and not the headline, you might have noticed something that all the WMD finds have in common. The article began with "A suspected mobile biological weapons lab..."

Note the word "suspected."

The article also notes that the "lab" was cleaned very thoroughly. At the moment, the authorities have no idea what was done in the "lab."

The thing that this find has in common with all the others? No confirmation. Not yet, at any rate. We hear nothing of the conex containers that were located a couple weeks ago. We hear nothing of the stash of barrels that contained suspicious chemicals from two weeks ago..... etc. We hear nothing about these anymore becuase there's nothing to hear.

Now I agree, it seems likely that its purpose was nefarious, but we also have to ask: was the "lab" in use recently? If so, where are the agents that were produced?

But whether or not any WMDs were present or not isn't the real point. The real point is that WMDs were the excuse that we used to invade the nation. Many nations within that region have WMDs against the will of the United Nations. Libya, Syria, Jordan and Iran all have confirmed or strongly suspected to have chemical/biological weapons. Isreal even has nuclear weapons.

ECONOMIC CONTROL OF THE REGION.

Luc Solar

05-09-2003, 05:39 AM

Russia could never take Finland! :swear:

Those bastards *tried* back in the days they were big and powerful, but...

...pwned.. :p

I have to say that the stuff about "I'm bigger so I'ts alright for me to beat you up if I want to" was pretty hilarious. :D

Yeah...sovereignty is way overrated. In Bush we trust. :rolleyes:

Breton

05-09-2003, 10:53 AM

You know, a funny detail about this is that Saddam Hussein has never had any Weapons of Mass Destruction! We know this.

You see, the defenition of Weapons of Mass Destruction is "A weapon that can kill very many people in a very short time, and from a certain distance". According to Dieter Röhrich, professor in physics, the only weapon that fits to this description, and thereby the only weapons that can be called Weapons of Mass Destruction are nuclear weapons. Saddam has never had nuclear weapons.

And I doubt he had chemical/biological weapons anyway.

For instance, it is only a myth that the Weapon Inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. The Iraqi regime refused to cooperate 31. Oktober 1998, because they had gotten a letter from the Security Council, wich indicated that even if Iraq did cooperate, they didn't have to remove the oil blocade, wich was put on Iraq by the SC. However, two weeks later, the Weapon Inspectors were allowed into Iraq again and allowed to continue their inspections, wich ran smoothly, until the leader of the inspectors decided to pull them out at 16th December. They weren't kicked out, they pulled out themselves.

Luc Solar

05-09-2003, 11:16 AM

I do recall seeing some pretty funny footage of Iraqi officials not letting the weapon inspectors do their job, though.. :D

It was like: "sure, you can search this building but not quite yet... 'cause we need to get some..stuff done first." :rolleyes:

or

"We got nothing to hide but if you don't give me those documents back I'll have to shoot you all. I promise you'll get them *all* back next week but first we need check what exactly it is you got there."

...yeah right!

Wilhuf

05-09-2003, 07:38 PM

Pardon my French but the idea that "economic control of the region" is the American objective in operation Iraqi Freedom is utter horsesh*t.

US Department of Defense representatives testified before the US Congress that the military operation in Iraq could cost up to $80 BILLION. And another $FIVE BILLION per year for the occupation and reconstruction. Assuming the US commitment is relatively short, say five years, that will run the American taxpayer $105 BILLION. A longer commitment costs more.

Here's preemptive strike: Don't waste your time griping about how Haliburton and its subcontractors are "war profiteering." Guess who has to pay Haliburton and its subcontractors for their work? THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER. $Hundreds of millions, payed for by Americans. Not the EU, not the UN.

Operation Iraqi Freedom is NOT a money-making exercise. The US does not intend to and will not profit in this endeavor. WAKE UP!

For the reality-challenged here, I'll help you think through the implications of a MOBILE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LABORATORY:

Imagine that you're a third world dictator bent on intimdating and controling your neighbors. The obvious thing to do would be to build a Chemical, Biological, Riadological, Nuclear (CBRN) capability to leverage power projection ability. This was necessary since your air force was mostly destroyed in 1991, and those aircraft that weren't, are now under Iranian control since you ordered them to flee to Iran.

Now, understand that in 1991 you were required, under INTERNATIONAL LAW to disarm and dispose of said CBRN ability. Pesky United Nations inspectors had traversed your brutal dominion for twelve years, looking for the goods. Until you finally kicked them out, that is. :D

Yet an annoying country, those infidel do-gooder Americans, and their British puppets, just wont shove their heads up their collective *sses and go away, unlike much of the rest of the world. They aren't buying your claims of innocence. How could you achieve your goal under these appalling imperialist conditions? What to do, what to do?

Enter the MOBILE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LABORATORY. The concept is simple and effective. Haul a camoflaged vehicle around hinterland Iraq, and develop CBRN ability. Keep it clean, in the event that it is captured. Gotta maintain plausible deniability, after all.

Besides, why worry. Most countries will simply look the other way. After all, noone gave a sh*t about what you did to the Iranians back in the 80s. Hell, they don't care what you do to your own civilian population. At least not enough to actually DO something to stop it.

... Except for those Imperialist Americans and Brits!

Wilhuf

05-09-2003, 07:53 PM

you can't invade a nation for having a bad leader.

This is the core flaw in the existing international system. Too many countries shoving their heads in the sand, pretending the problem will go away, rationalizing their inaction and acquiesence. ANYTHING short of confrontation. It's a DISGRACE.

Fortunately we have leaders such as US Undersecretary Wolfowitz who actually believe and ACT on the premise that Human Rights should take FRONT and CENTER stage, backed up by FORCE, in international policy.

Yes it is neoconservative idealism, but it is about time a country stood up to the rest of the world and and acted for what IS right.

Dagobahn Eagle

05-09-2003, 08:11 PM

For the reality-challenged here, I'll help you think through the implications of a MOBILE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LABORATORY:

Imagine that you're a third world dictator bent on intimdating and controling your neighbors. The obvious thing to do would be to build a Chemical, Biological, Riadological, Nuclear (CBRN) capability to leverage power projection ability. This was necessary since your air force was mostly destroyed in 1991, and those aircraft that weren't, are now under Iranian control since you ordered them to flee to Iran.Hmm.. yes. ONE facility.

If he had ten or a dozen or a houndred, sure I'd be scared, but he can't manufacture and store many bio-weapons with only one facility to. IMO, if he wanted a war, he'd do far more damage with conventional means.

And the other big question:
If Saddam had WMDs, why didn't he use them when the Coalition rolled in? It could have turned the tide of the war a bit, at least delaying the US Juggernaut long enough for Saddam to actually ready and fire those Scuds at Israel... for he was going to, right? That he was a threat to the neighbouring nations was another reason the Coalition invaded.

But no. No WMDs. No invading or harrasing neighbouring nations except from one missile that hit a Kuwaiti Shopping Mall (don't think there was anything but that).

Zodiac

05-09-2003, 08:19 PM

Here's preemptive strike: Don't waste your time griping about how Haliburton and its subcontractors are "war profiteering." Guess who has to pay Haliburton and its subcontractors for their work? THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER. $Hundreds of millions, payed for by Americans. Not the EU, not the UN.

Operation Iraqi Freedom is NOT a money-making exercise.
Nope, it's not a money-making exercise for the american taxpayer. But that's not the case for those bigger chiefs at Haliburton (& Co). They are getting richer from those contracts. and well.. you even said the american taxpayer has to pay Haliburton and its subcontractors for its work too...

.. so if I was an American taxpayer.. I'd feel screwed. :(

Breton

05-09-2003, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by Wilhuf

Imagine that you're a third world dictator bent on intimdating and controling your neighbors. The obvious thing to do would be to build a Chemical, Biological, Riadological, Nuclear (CBRN) capability to leverage power projection ability. This was necessary since your air force was mostly destroyed in 1991, and those aircraft that weren't, are now under Iranian control since you ordered them to flee to Iran.

But you don't need to build chemical and bilogical, since you have gotten these weapons from the USA and gotten help to denvelop it to kill Iranians (they later gave weapons to the Iranians to kill the Iraqis, but you don't know about this).

Now, understand that in 1991 you were required, under INTERNATIONAL LAW to disarm and dispose of said CBRN ability. Pesky United Nations inspectors had traversed your brutal dominion for twelve years, looking for the goods.

And they haven't found anything very bad. And since the US cannot find anything either, I doubt that is because the UN inspectors are bad.

Until you finally kicked them out, that is.

Wrong. It should be "Until they pulled out after advice from the US representative at UN".

Yet an annoying country, those infidel do-gooder Americans, and their British puppets, just wont shove their heads up their collective *sses and go away, unlike much of the rest of the world. They aren't buying your claims of innocence. How could you achieve your goal under these appalling imperialist conditions? What to do, what to do?

Yet again, this shows the wrong picture. The rest of the world never wanted to leave Saddam alone. They just wanted to solve the matter peacefully, unlike certain others. Every country knows that Saddam isn't innocent.

Enter the MOBILE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LABORATORY. The concept is simple and effective. Haul a camoflaged vehicle around hinterland Iraq, and develop CBRN ability. Keep it clean, in the event that it is captured. Gotta maintain plausible deniability, after all.

I know a better one: They threw all their chemical weapons onto a space ship and flew it to Venus, where they will get it when the coast is once again clear. :rolleyes:

No really. There is nothing that leads to the excistance of these Mobile Labs, and far from anything that proves anything. It is only speculations and accusions.

Besides, why worry. Most countries will simply look the other way. After all, noone gave a sh*t about what you did to the Iranians back in the 80s. Hell, they don't care what you do to your own civilian population. At least not enough to actually DO something to stop it.

Well there is one country that does give a sh*t: USA. After all, it is them who are giving you what you need to kill the Iranian people and oppress your own population. Yes, Saddam has many reasons to be thankful to USA.

This is the core flaw in the existing international system. Too many countries shoving their heads in the sand, pretending the problem will go away, rationalizing their inaction and acquiesence. ANYTHING short of confrontation. It's a DISGRACE.

Can you mention any of these countries?

Because I don't know of any.

Yes it is neoconservative idealism, but it is about time a country stood up to the rest of the world and and acted for what IS right.

Tell me: What is right? To kill innocents? To occupy another country without any real reason?

Most of the Iraqi people didn't like Saddam. Just as most of the Iraqi people doesn't like being occupied by US.

And remember, kids: If everyone were socialists, there would be no wars.

Zodiac

05-09-2003, 08:43 PM

This is the core flaw in the existing international system. Too many countries shoving their heads in the sand, pretending the problem will go away, rationalizing their inaction and acquiesence. ANYTHING short of confrontation. It's a DISGRACE.

The International Law is fine, but the way it's followed is the real flaw! I think the biggest flaw in the current Security Council is the veto right for the five (US, UK, France, China and Russia). permanent members of that council. You accused countries of not going into confrontation and "shoving their heads in the sand", but it's actually the US who vetoed the most when the Security Council DID want to act against crimes at human rights.

Each of the 5 priviliged countries has used their right to veto several times, with the United Stated topping the bill of number of vetoes in the Security Council (73 times since 1990!!). Many of those vetoes favoring Israel, the US' ally, in their conflict with the Palestinians. Now while some vetoes were correctly used for the preservation of peace, other were not.
By misusing their right to veto, I think those members misused and/or even abused their power for their "own" (most likely economic) reasons, and not for the protection of the humane situations in other countries. :mad:

It's time to put an end to this current veto system and establish a new and more equal voting system without privileged members.

But there lies this other problem: The current five members love their current privileged status and the power they gain from it, and they sure as hell don't want to lose it. :( The taste of power sure is sweet. :(

Dagobahn Eagle

05-09-2003, 08:43 PM

And remember, kids: If everyone were socialists, there would be no wars.
Huh?
Do you mean as in democratic:confused:?

Wilhuf

05-09-2003, 09:03 PM

Why didn't Saddam use WMDs when the Coalition rolled in?

Because he wanted to exact political rather than military damage. Obviously if Saddam used CBRN that would lend justification to the Coalition's operation. That was unacceptable to him.

Also it could be that Hussein never had the chance to issue the final release order for their use, if he was eliminated during the operation.

Anyway, the fact remains, whether Haliburton profits or not, is that Iraqi Freedom COST the US in absolute terms. The anti-Americans here (and you ARE an anti-American) cannot justify their complaints that Iraqi Freedom is of some kind of Imperialist exercise.

BTW a US veto on the security council is a GREAT thing, given that countries such as LIBYA and CUBA are on the HUMAN RIGHTS Committee. :rolleyes:

Yes the taste of power is sweet, and thankfully the US uses that sweet power to promote FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. :)

Wilhuf

05-09-2003, 09:10 PM

What is right? To kill innocents? To occupy another country without any real reason?

This is supreme irony. The question crystalizes the justification for the US operation in Iraq. Hussein has killed innocents. THOUSANDS of them. And has occupied other countries (Kuwait, Iran) without any real reason.

I really wish that those who truly believe in internationalism, and multiculturalism would open their eyes to what the Baath regime was about. Stop sticking your heads in the sand.

Confront, do not appease!

Dagobahn Eagle

05-09-2003, 09:25 PM

I really wish that those who truly believe in internationalism, and multiculturalism would open their eyes to what the Baath regime was about. Stop sticking your heads in the sand.
Sarcasm: Oh, and I thought the Baath party was a democratic regime:rolleyes:.

Confront, do not appease!
And how, exactly, did we appease Saddam?
NOT by "letting him have WMDs", so don't even think about saying that. Give us some truth here.

Because he wanted to exact political rather than military damage. Obviously if Saddam used CBRN that would lend justification to the Coalition's operation. That was unacceptable to him.
Do you have any evidence to back that up?

Anyway, the fact remains, whether Haliburton profits or not, is that Iraqi Freedom COST the US in absolute terms. The anti-Americans here (and you ARE an anti-American) cannot justify their complaints that Iraqi Freedom is of some kind of Imperialist exercise.
Let me just say this: You can dislike the US military and Bush without hating the USA.

BTW a US veto on the security council is a GREAT thing, given that countries such as LIBYA and CUBA are on the HUMAN RIGHTS Committee.
Don't Cuban nationals have the same rights to human rights as Americans, even though they're "just commies"?

USA's veto on those Child Rights were definetly not a good thing.

Yes the taste of power is sweet, and thankfully the US uses that sweet power to promote FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.
FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY trough BOMBING, THREATS, and BASHING OF ALLIES. Personally, I can't say I like the tasts of that.

Wilhuf

05-09-2003, 09:59 PM

And how, exactly, did we appease Saddam?

If by "we" you mean the French representation to the UN, it was by sitting by and doing NOTHING while in Iraq, THOUSANDS died, and THOUSANDS more languished in illegal, unjust imprisonment, many subject to continual TORTURE.

I can promise you that sitting by and hemming and hawing about how "now is not the right time to act" will accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in advancing the ideals of freedom and pluralism. Pres. Bush was absolutely right to act when he did.

The suggestion (from the French Ambassador to the UN for instance) to "wait until we have proof" is really the same thing as saying "don't do anything ever." This is appeasement.

I know it is difficult, but the reality you must face is that there are times when the seemingly unspeakable is the right thing to do.

Just because it is difficult and perilous does not mean that Freedom and Democracy should not be stood up for.

Wilhuf

05-09-2003, 10:04 PM

Don't Cuban nationals have the same rights to human rights as Americans, even though they're "just commies"?

1. Cubans aren't just commies. Drop the stereotypes NOW.

2. Cuban nationals SHOULD have the same human rights as Americans. Unfortunately they DONT enjoy them in their own country because of the Castro government and CP. The US, because of this, has enacted a series of economic embargoes against Cuba for the past four decades.

3. The Cuban representation on the UN Security Council has between little to nothing to do with representation of the actual will of the Cuban people. The same is true for Libya. It is yet another irony that one would try to advocate for greater Cuban or Libyan representation on the security council, given each regime's lack of legitimacy.

Wilhuf

05-09-2003, 10:15 PM

Until they pulled out after advice from the US representative at UN

Exactly. And the US recommendation was driven by the Iraqi statments that UN inspectors' "security could no longer be guaranteed." That is diplomatic parlance for "get out or we'll kill you!"

Dagobahn Eagle

05-09-2003, 10:25 PM

1. Cubans aren't just commies. Drop the stereotypes NOW.
There's a reason why I used the "s. I know they aren't all communists.
The suggestion (from the French Ambassador to the UN for instance) to "wait until we have proof" is really the same thing as saying "don't do anything ever." This is appeasement.No.
If they didn't search for WMDs, that'd be appeasement. But they searched for it, and many of the ones they found, they made Saddam destroy.

The only two things I heard in the news about inspectors was stuff like "1 missile found and destroyed" and "no missiles in X city." Never "Saddam refuses to destroy the three missiles found in a bike workshop".

Breton

05-09-2003, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
If by "we" you mean the French representation to the UN, it was by sitting by and doing NOTHING while in Iraq, THOUSANDS died, and THOUSANDS more languished in illegal, unjust imprisonment, many subject to continual TORTURE.

...while thousands of Americans have died due to firearms because the Bush administration has failed to concentrate about other things than destruction and revenge.

And if your idea of "nothing" is to step up weapon inspections in Iraq, maintain an international pressure to make Saddam disarm peacefully, and try to maintain a stabile world with negotiations, then they are doing nothing.

Oh, and BTW, you hear a lot of these torture chambers, but you never see them. Why is that, do you think?

The suggestion (from the French Ambassador to the UN for instance) to "wait until we have proof" is really the same thing as saying "don't do anything ever." This is appeasement.

If everyone in the world would rush to war like the Bush administration does, have you then any idea of how many (unnessisary) wars there would be? I must say that Bush is not doing a good impression for other countries.

Just because it is difficult and perilous does not mean that Freedom and Democracy should not be stood up for.

Yeah, we see how much "freedom and democracy" the Iraqis have gotten :rolleyes: .

2. Cuban nationals SHOULD have the same human rights as Americans. Unfortunately they DONT enjoy them in their own country because of the Castro government and CP. The US, because of this, has enacted a series of economic embargoes against Cuba for the past four decades.

Oh, most of them are all fine. Even more of them would be fine if the economic embargoes were dropped. Do you really think damaging their economy is a good way of being nice to Cuba?

3. The Cuban representation on the UN Security Council has between little to nothing to do with representation of the actual will of the Cuban people. The same is true for Libya.

And the rest of the world countries.

People must learn that a country and it's goverment are two VERY different things.

Exactly. And the US recommendation was driven by the Iraqi statments that UN inspectors' "security could no longer be guaranteed." That is diplomatic parlance for "get out or we'll kill you!"

Wrong. The day after the inspectors were pulled out, USA did massive bombing at Iraq. There is no doubt that this was the reason of why they were pulled out.

Zodiac

05-09-2003, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
BTW a US veto on the security council is a GREAT thing, given that countries such as LIBYA and CUBA are on the HUMAN RIGHTS Committee
Yes the taste of power is sweet, and thankfully the US uses that sweet power to promote FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. :)
None of those countries with the right to veto is a GREAT thing. Some of the countries are using their veto powers for the wrong reasons, some more than others (with the US most likely abusing it the most, with its outrageous 73 times since 1990).
And if you really believe that the US is only using its veto to promote freedom and democracy, then perhaps it is you who should "stick its head out of the sand", "face reality" and look at the facts. :rolleyes:

For example: In early december 2002, the US vetoed a resolution condemning violence in the Middle East, specifically the killing of U.N. employees by Israeli soldiers and the destruction of a U.N. warehouse filled with food for needy Palestinians.

Of course it's not only the US who is misusing its power to veto, but to assume that the US is using it to only promote freedom and democracy is plain out ignorant or just VERY naieve. :(

Wilhuf

05-09-2003, 10:56 PM

It's the pinnacle of ignorance and naivete to spout on about "human rights" and not ACT to protect them.

Wilhuf

05-09-2003, 11:03 PM

And if your idea of "nothing" is to step up weapon inspections in Iraq, maintain an international pressure to make Saddam disarm peacefully, and try to maintain a stabile world with negotiations, then they are doing nothing.

This is the course the UN followed for 14 years from 1991 up until 2003. Essentially it amounted to nothing, since it failed to gain Iraqi disarmament and cooperation. It is an irrefutable fact that Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector of the much-vaunted UN himself said that Iraq was NOT fully co-operating with inspection teams.

Zodiac

05-09-2003, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
It's the pinnacle of ignorance and naivete to spout on about "human rights" and not ACT to protect them.
Exactly! This has been exactly what the US has done many times with its abuse of its veto power since 1990. The Security Council made numerous resolutions to step in and act to protect human rights, but the US vetoed many of them (while in the meantime "spouting on about human rights"). Blaah, the hypocracy of it all! Glad we agree on at least one thing.

Wilhuf

05-09-2003, 11:23 PM

Yeah, we see how much "freedom and democracy" the Iraqis have gotten

Iraqis have enjoyed more freedom and democracy in the past few weeks than during the entire 30 years of Baath tyranny.

Take the Shiia pilgrimage to Najaf for example. This pilgrimage was BANNED by the Baath Party. For the first time in decades, immediately following the US-led coalition sweep through Iraq, thousands of Iraqi Shiias made this pilgrimage openly. This was possible ONLY because the US and its allies used force to destroy the Hussein regime.

A few UN inspectors wandering about the Iraqi countrside would NOT have brought about a change of this magnitude.

As to the "nonexistent torture chambers," all you have to do is watch TV news or read a newspaper. There are dozens of reports on wrongful Iraqi imprisonments and torture. A cursory glance at the almighty UN's own Comission on Human Rights reports revealed a pattern of widespread violation by Iraq of almost all human rights, including torture. See a sample UNHCHR report on Iraq. (http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/a7ceb0d6cd8b23bd80256820005404cf?Opendocument) The complete list is here (http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/FramePage/Iraq%20En?OpenDocument&Start=1&Count=15&Expand=2) .

Dagobahn Eagle

05-09-2003, 11:28 PM

Were the Cubans "Fully Cooperative" during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Were the Russians "Fully cooperative" during the Cold War?

Are the North Koreans "fully cooperative" during the Nuclear Missile Crisis we see today?

Are the Israelis "fully cooperative" when countries try to end violence in the Middle East?

No. Do you go to war against any of those? No.

Essentially it amounted to nothing, since it failed to gain Iraqi disarmament and cooperation.
*Is clueless* What makes you think that? The impression I got was that Saddam destroyed several of the weapons.

Cooperation? I ask again, if it's so important that UN member countries and countries affected by the UN cooperate, why doesn't the US Administration give a damn? If it's so important that treaties are followed, why doesn't the US Administration follow them?

Comic:
Bush has determined that only blatant and total disregard of UN treaties and rules can stop Saddam's blatant and total disregard of UN's treaties and rules
:)

Take the Shiia pilgrimage to Najaf for example. This pilgrimage was BANNED by the Baath Party. For the first time in decades, immediately following the US-led coalition sweep through Iraq, thousands of Iraqi Shiias made this pilgrimage openly. This was possible ONLY because the US and its allies used force to destroy the Hussein regime.

A few UN inspectors wandering about the Iraqi countrside would NOT have brought about a change of this magnitude.
Of course not. But they wouldn't have killed thousands of people, either.

PS: Please stop double-posting and use the EDIT button.

Wilhuf

05-09-2003, 11:31 PM

There are probably a lot more things we agree on than disagree on. :) (Star Wars?) But I bet it is off topic.

I think the Iraqi operation was really a first (well, second actually) of its kind. The first real military operation with a real humanitarian agenda. Although one could say that the US-led wars in Kosovo and Bosnia were also humanitarian in nature.

Wilhuf

05-09-2003, 11:37 PM

The impression I got was that Saddam destroyed several of the weapons.

Yes Uncle Saddam had a few Al-Samoud missiles destroyed , right before the US operation. But notice the CONTEXT. There were several HUNDRED THOUSAND US SOLDIERS parked right next door, ready to go in. How many missiles did the Iraqis destroy BEFORE the US military buildup in Kuwait? ZERO.

Actually this example is a good demonstration of how the THREAT of force, not ACTUAL force can in fact affect change, up to a point. And it demonstrates vividly how inaction really wont unshackle the oppressed.

If it's so important that treaties are followed, why doesn't the US Administration follow them?
The US does obey international treaties it ratifies. In the case of Operation Iraqi Freedom the US claimed it was following UN resolutions requiring Iraqi disarmament.

BTW in 1991 as part of the cease-fire arrangement between the US and Iraq, Iraq agreed to disarm itself of CBRN and WMD. So, from a "legal" standpoint, the US already had the paper backing it needed.

But they wouldn't have killed thousands of people, either.
If by "they" you mean Pilgrims, I have no idea what you mean. If by "they" you mean Americans, I have to say, the Iraqis, led by the Baath regime would be the ones doing the killing.

As many as 50,000 Shiaas were alleged to have been killed by Iraqi military units during a Shiaa uprising in Basra in the early 1990s. The US sat by and did NOTHING, while Iraqis used helicopter gunships to put down the rebellion, which took place within the Southern No-Fly Zone. This is just plain WRONG.

IMO, the US OWED the Iraqis liberation to somehow try to set right that grave injustice.

Vagabond

05-10-2003, 12:34 AM

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Weapons that blow up church services.

SkinWalker

05-10-2003, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
The anti-Americans here (and you ARE an anti-American) cannot justify their complaints that Iraqi Freedom is of some kind of Imperialist exercise.

I disagree with both of the points you made a half-a@@ attempt at promoting.

First, I find it hard to understand how you can call someone who disagrees with a policy as anti-American. This is obviously an attempt inciting anger, resentment, shame, or some other emotion that those lack critical thinking skills would likely feel. A sad attempt at controlling the psyche of someone in a chat forum...

In fact, dissent and the refusal to settle for the status quo is VERY American. Some of our greatest patriots refused to accept the government's stand on many issues: Rosa Parks, Dr. King, John Brown, Mother Jones, Charles Young, and Chief Seattle to name a very few. I see it as un-American to sit idly by and watch what you consider to be against your convictions of honor and good sense become the norm for your government. At the very least, you should SPEAK OUT.

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Yes, that quote says it nicely.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
Yes the taste of power is sweet, and thankfully the US uses that sweet power to promote FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. :)

As it was promoted in:

[list=a]
Chile - 1973
Where we helped General Pinochet overthrow the democratically elected Salvador Allende. Pinochet's brutal rule eventually was blamed for the deaths of thousands of students, union organizors and other "anti-Chileans."

Guatemala - 1953
Where the U.S. corporate-controlled United Fruit Company was about to be nationalized by the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz. We weren't about to stand for that (loss of economic control of a region). 40 years of death squads and torturers trained by American SpecOps was the outcome after this regime was changed.

Indonesia - 1957
We use disinformation, lies, and blackmail to replace Pres. Sukarno with General Suharto (see a trend of generals here?). Over 1 million are killed in Indonesia and American weapons and training are instrumental in this and the invasion of the sovereign nation of East Timor. The population was perhaps 700,000 before Suharto's forces killed nearly 200,000.

Columbia - now
The U.S. backed the Cali Cartel in order to get rid of Pablo Escobar... seems that Escobar was speaking some 'anti-American' sentiments (perhaps he was a history major as well as a drug dealer) and anti-imperialist rhetoric. We are being overwhelmed by the flow of drugs comming from the Cali Cartel, now fortified and solidified.
[/list=a]

Of course there are many, many more examples: Iran, Afganistan, Cambodia, The Congo, Cuba, El Salvador, Panama, Philippines, etc.

Forgive me if I use precedent to mistrust my government's intentions. Especially when I see evidence of corporate favortism and exclusive corporate contracts. True, the war will cost the American taxpayer a bundle. It already is. But the few at the top of the pyramid will make out like bandits. There are Trillians of dollars (or Euros....) to be made in the Iraqi oil fields. There are billions that can be saved by corporations that have insurances about supply and pricing.

Economic control of the region.

In the 1950's, the Eisenhower doctrine stated, the United States “is prepared to use armed forces to assist” any Middle Eastern country “requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism.” In other words, no one is allowed is to f^ck around in the Middle East or its oil fields except the United States.

I don't think things have changed much. If they have, show me the evidence.

One thing I do find fascinating about your post's Wilhuf, is the condescension that eminates through the text:

1. Cubans aren't just commies. Drop the stereotypes NOW.

A good example. I'm fascinated that you feel the need to command. Your views go lock-step with the right-wing fascist attitudes that get spouted from the mouths of Ari Fleisher and Darth Rumsfeld. The fascists around here (and you ARE a fascist, evidenced by your comments about aggressive nationalism and militarism) simply amuse me. I'm going to have to consider them along with the UFO nuts and Religious Fundamentalists in my quest to answer "why do people believe."

None of Skin Walker's comments is really a contribution to the debate. If I were back in my old position as a supermoderator, I'd post a warning about personal attacks (e.g. you, Wilhuf are a fascist). But then if I did would have to forgo the following:

You, SkinWalker, are a hyppocrite. First you complain about "condescenscion" and in typical forum hyppocrite fashion, throw out amateur labels such as "you are a fascist, religious zealout UFO Nut." Unlike you, I find these labels neither amusing nor fascinating. But I do find them small minded. (Well, the UFO Nut part is pretty funny). :beam2:

Skinwalker's comments are appropriate and even representative in a way: it's one thing to talk about the need for pluralism, open-mindedness, world unity, understanding, and the need for all peoples to live as they see fit, free from the dictates of foreigners.

But it is supremely ironic, as I've said, to hear the same individual, when confronted with the need to actually fight, kill, go to war, and to do the unspeakable to uphold those beliefs. It saddens me to see people of conviction positively shrivel when it is time to act. This kind of reaction from people who normally say "o yes I believe in freedom and democracy" to the Liberation of Iraq is utterly dissapointing.

Ok so maybe you've gone to an anti-liberation protest, or even ransacked a Starbucks, but it's strange to see people of such conviction talk about Human Rights and yet, when it comes time to use violence to set right the cruel deeds of a tyrant (Hussein), they just cannot bring themselves to act. It is a total failure to connect one's personal beliefs in freedom and pluralism with the actual real life world, and its requirement for deeds.

BTW the Eisenhower doctrine was a desecndent of the Truman Doctrine, which was born out of a need to contain Soviet Totalitarianism. A cursory look at Stalin-era human rights will make obvious why the Truman and Eisenhower Doctrines were born. Both have minimal relevance in today's post-cold war era. But I do appreciate SkinWalker's half-*ssed pedantry!

On the other hand, I think Vagabond's joke about WMD had far more insight than anything SkinWalker's list of irrelevent history synopses could conjure. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Guffaw!

Nobody here has yet established how ANYTHING short of armed conflict in Iraq to remove the Baath Regime would actually HELP the Iraqi people.

It seems we're in for another debate in the UN about terminating sanctions on Iraq. Apparently the Russians and the French want to keep on punishing the Iraqi people by upholding economic sanctions? Are these countries out to make the Iraqis suffer as much as possible? Or are they really just trying to score 'points' against the US (again)?

C'jais

05-10-2003, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
None of Skin Walker's comments is really a contribution to the debate. If I were back in my old position as a supermoderator, I'd post a warning about personal attacks (e.g. you, Wilhuf are a fascist). But then if I did would have to forgo the following:

Personal attacks is something you should be wary about yourself. Your tone is very condescending, and I've seen you refer to other people as ignorant and naive before.

You, SkinWalker, are a hyppocrite. First you complain about "condescenscion" and in typical forum hyppocrite fashion, throw out amateur labels such as "you are a fascist, religious zealout UFO Nut." Unlike you, I find these labels neither amusing nor fascinating. But I do find them small minded. (Well, the UFO Nut part is pretty funny). :)

Read Skinwalkers post again, this time in context to your own. You said: "and you ARE an antiamerican" - Skin just did the exact same to you, in a try to make you see the irony in what you are now saying. In short, he was trying to be funny. If you have the power to call someone in here Antiamerican, we have the power to call you a fascist as well - it goes both ways. Mind you, I don't encourage this behaviour but I'll justify its use when its biting you in the behind.

It's strange to see people of such conviction talk about Human Rights and yet, when it comes time to use violence to set right the cruel deeds of a tyrant (Hussein), they just cannot bring themselves to act. It is a total failure to connect one's personal beliefs in freedom and pluralism with the actual real life world, and its requirement for deeds.

You've set a precedent, that's for sure. Pre-emptives strikes are now encouraged, thanks to you. N. Korea could technically nuke San Fran on account of you threatening their sovereignity and using terrorism against civilians (yes, you've done that).

Just drop this. The UN does act and help oppressed people. If we total the amount of time the US has vetoed against such an action versus the amount of times it has actually helped, you'll be looking like a sore pacifist. And don't forget all the corrupt dictatorships you've not only supported, but helped establish. They are very relevant in this discussion.

Nobody here has yet established how ANYTHING short of armed conflict in Iraq to remove the Baath Regime would actually HELP the Iraqi people.

And you're willing to do the same to every oppressing dictatorship everywhere in the world, right? Start with N. Korea. Remove the kid gloves. Roll in and save the day.

Wilhuf

05-10-2003, 10:41 AM

And you're willing to do the same to every oppressing dictatorship everywhere in the world, right? Start with N. Korea. Remove the kid gloves. Roll in and save the day.

That is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Undoubtedly the rest of the world will b*tch and moan, but, in the long run, it is preferable to totalitarnianism.

Just because you agree with skinwalker, c'jais, doesn't mean you need to caution me about tone. You should have cautioned skinwalker first.

Another question : what kind of mind says "well the US has supported dictatorships in the past, so it really shouldn't remedy the situation?" In other words, just because the US has had relationships with nasty regimes in the past it should NEVER do anything to knock out the bad apples. This is tremendous fallacy!

If the US fell victim to this twisted "reasoning", the US would never have entered World War II.

C'jais

05-10-2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
That is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Undoubtedly the rest of the world will b*tch and moan, but, in the long run, it is preferable to totalitarnianism.

Good to hear. BTW, my country did support you in the Iraq war, for what it's worth.

Just because you agree with skinwalker, c'jais, doesn't mean you need to caution me about tone. You should have cautioned skinwalker first.

Again, Skin was making a parody on you, but everyone should watch what they say in this heated debate, I agree.

C'jais there were many countries who supported the coalition in Iraq. Even the mighty Uganda!

Pre-emptives strikes are now encouraged, thanks to you.

If by "you", you mean me, it's not my fault! If by "you", you mean the United States, just look at Germany. In 1939 German Blitzkrieg set a precedent for preemptive strikes back when premption wasn't cool! Even World War I had pre-emptive strikes (interlocking international allegances, for example, requiring Germany to preemptively attack France).

C'jais

05-10-2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
OK so when I defend myself, it's condescenscion, and when skinwalker posts personal insults, it's parody. ROGER THAT.

How can you defend yourself if you're the one who delivered the first attack? A pre-emptive strike, perhaps? ;)

C'jais there were many countries who supported the coalition in Iraq. Even the mighty Uganda!

Oh yeah, but we sent a submarine and a warship!!! :D

Wilhuf

05-10-2003, 11:10 AM

A pre-emptive strike, perhaps?
Har har haw. :p

From your clues I am trying to figure out your country of nationality...
Norway?

Breton

05-10-2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
That is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Undoubtedly the rest of the world will b*tch and moan, but, in the long run, it is preferable to totalitarnianism.

And after North Korea, you can "deal" with Syria, before taking control over Zimbabwe, and after that China, because they are after all, anti-American communists, and I am sure you can "find" some relationships with Al-Quida there too. After China, you go after Russia for the same reasons as with China, except that you are going to "disarm" Russia. And after that, you take down France and Germany, because since their leaders isn't chosen by USA, the countries are dictatorships. And after that, the eastern European countries because they are communism dictatorships, before taking down Scandinavia, who also are communists and socialists, and then taking down all the countries you don't like in Africa, before occupying UK and then take a final charge against Australia and the southern European countries.

Don't you think?

This is supreme irony. The question crystalizes the justification for the US operation in Iraq. Hussein has killed innocents. THOUSANDS of them. And has occupied other countries (Kuwait, Iran) without any real reason.

So does the Bush administration. Should we attack the USA then? Well, if Europe were thinking like the American goverment does right now, then that would be possible.

Hehe, this is funny. You call us anti-Americans because we do not agree with your beliefs, and that is defending yourself? And when Skin does the same thing to you to show how dumb it is, then you make more personal attacks than Skin has done in his whole forum time. Makes me glad you aren't a supermod, to be honest.

C'jais

05-10-2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
From your clues I am trying to figure out your country of nationality...
Norway?

Close.

Move one down, and one to the left. When you reach England, you've gone too far.

Wilhuf

05-10-2003, 11:16 AM

You call us anti-Americans because we do not agree with your beliefs, and that is defending yourself?

If your belief is that Americans are ignorant and are imperialists, then yes I do NOT agree, and I do believe it is an anti-American attitude.

Should we attack the USA then?

This kind of thinking IS anti-American.

Move one down, and one to the left

If by "down" and "left" you mean "south" and "east", you run smack into the UK. How about Scottland!

C'jais

05-10-2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
If by "down" and "left" you mean "south" and "east", you run smack into the UK. How about Scottland!

Well well, it depends on where you start in Norway. Count Sweden as the "down" one.

EDIT: Of course, I wouldn't be dissapointed if you can't find me country. It's a wee small one.

Wilhuf

05-10-2003, 11:31 AM

I would be dissapointed though, as I'm a cartographer!

Denmark!

And after North Korea, you can "deal" with Syria, before taking control over Zimbabwe, ... snip ... And after that, you take down France and Germany, because since their leaders isn't chosen by USA, the countries are dictatorships. ..snip...

Is that the kind of thinking that is popular in Europe? No sarcasm intended in this question. Do Europeans truly fear US domination?

C'jais

05-10-2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
I would be dissapointed though, as I'm a cartographer!

Originally posted by Wilhuf
If your belief is that Americans are ignorant and are imperialists, then yes I do NOT agree, and I do believe it is an anti-American attitude.

That is not my beliefs. I disagree with the American foreign politics, and that's all.

This kind of thinking IS anti-American.

1. I do NOT think we should attack the US.
2. Why? Is it anti-Iraqian to think that Iraq should be attacked?

Is that the kind of thinking that is popular in Europe? No sarcasm intended in this question. Do Europeans truly fear US domination?

Not really. But no country in Europe has ever feared Saddam either.

From your clues I am trying to figure out your country of nationality...
Norway?

What's wrong with Norway then? :mad:

Wilhuf

05-10-2003, 11:57 AM

If there is no real threat from the US taking over the world, why waste bandwidth complaining about the possibility? :quesyel: This is complaining about America for complaining's sake...

Is it anti-Iraqian to think that Iraq should be attacked?

To a limited extent, yes. After all, destroying the Baath regime would mean that some, even many Iraqis in the Baath regime would have to die. Obviously the US knew that going in, and CENTCOM established measures to minimize Iraqi civillian casualites.

There were a few British citizens who may have feared Iraq, btw. Last I read, five percent of UK citizens approved of the US operation in Iraq :cheers:

I think it was foolish to pretend that Hussein wasn't really a problem. And it was even more foolish to do nothing about it. That seems to be a core difference of opinion at the UN.

Equally foolish is the failure of this forum to recognize the French and Russian economic interest in preventing US intervention in Iraq. You must realize the French and Russians had $BILLIONS invested in the Iraqi food for oil program.

While many complain that the US conducted operation Iraqi Freedom in order to profit (which basic accounting disproved), they failed to recognize how much the Russians and French had to GAIN by maintaining the status quo by blocking intervention through the UN. The UN is just another TOOL which countries use to advance their own national interests. The US is not the only party involved in this game.

SkinWalker

05-10-2003, 02:11 PM

First, Wilhuf, I've no interest in mounting any attacks against others here in this forum, pre-emptive or retaliatory. I merely wanted to point out the problem with making statements of "anti-Americanism" based on the position one takes in the matter of one United States policy. I (and others here) are decidedly very much behind many of the US policies and against some others.

My main point with my poor attempt at irony was that one cannot judge based upon limited information. I don't actually believe you to be a fascist.

Second, one thing that I notice about Americans is that when most people display the flag, they do so as hard working truck drivers, waitresses, construction workers and the like. To them, this is a good part of what the flag represents. To others of the world, however, our flag represents the things I pointed out in my previous post.

This is why I think how we do things in the world is just as, or more, important than why.

I don't disagree that Saddam was brutal and needed to be removed for the sake of the Iraqi people. But I also think that we cannot ignore the precedent that the action creates. If we don't take action in the future against poor rulers, then we look hypocritical. If we do, we look like a bully. This is why I think the WMD question was more of a justification than an actual reason. I think that by catagorizing the brutality and evil deeds that Saddam conducted, we might have been able to rally support of the world's public in an outcry that the UN could not ignore.

How many people know of the plight of the Marsh Arabs, for example? Saddam drained the wetlands that provided their way of life and mounted helicopter attacks against the people on a regular basis to drive them out. He didn't like them, because he couldn't control them.

Instead, the rest of the world sees the Halliburton scandal, Bush's heavy hand, callous disregard for UN decisions, etc., etc.

I don't think any of the people in this forum who are critical of the way the Bush admin handled the Iraqi crisis believe for a minute that Saddam deserved to stay in power. But you have to admit, the Bush admin has made a few public relations blunders in the past two years in regard to world opinion.

World opinion is vital. The way the world views our country is important for every American traveling abroad. It is largely what fuels the terrorist mandates against the U.S.

Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease.

Dagobahn Eagle

05-10-2003, 02:25 PM

Oh yeah, but we sent a submarine and a warship!!!
Denmark has a warship:eek:?? What'll the next thing be, that Sweden has an army?

If by "you", you mean me, it's not my fault! If by "you", you mean the United States, just look at Germany. In 1939 German Blitzkrieg set a precedent for preemptive strikes back when premption wasn't cool! Even World War I had pre-emptive strikes (interlocking international allegances, for example, requiring Germany to preemptively attack France).
I don' think anyone pre-emptively attack anyone toady thanks to Nazi-Germany.

What he meant was that according to global rules since WW II, Pre-emptive strikes have been banned. Now that the US has done it, others can do it to, as in "starting to do it again". If Syria finds a legal loophole and invades Israel pre-emptively, that's okay to you?

But they wouldn't have killed thousands of people, either.
If by "they" you mean Pilgrims, I have no idea what you mean. If by "they" you mean Americans, I have to say, the Iraqis, led by the Baath regime would be the ones doing the killing.
What I meant was that no, of course the UN weapon inspectors would never have toppled Saddam's regime. You're right at that. But freeing Iraq was not their intention in the first place, so you can't say their mission was unsuccessful because of that.

To re-phrase.
The Weapon Inspectors didn't free Iraq, but they [the Weapon inspectors] never killed thousands of Iraqis, either.

There were a few British citizens who may have feared Iraq, btw. Last I read, five percent of UK citizens approved of the US operation in Iraq
Hardly out of fear. The Iraqis don't have missiles that can hit the UK, and if they were to try to invade the UK, they'd fail miserably. They *might* try terrorism, but increased security could ward off terrorism.

Wilhuf

05-10-2003, 03:01 PM

we cannot ignore the precedent that the action creates. If we don't take action in the future against poor rulers, then we look hypocritical. If we do, we look like a bully. This is why I think the WMD question was more of a justification than an actual reason. I think that by catagorizing the brutality and evil deeds that Saddam conducted, we might have been able to rally support of the world's public in an outcry that the UN could not ignore.

I agree 100 percent.

I hope I've made it clear why I support operation Iraqi Freedom. The justification is the end of the Baath regime and its tyranny, plain and simple. I wish it were only so easy for the US to approach the UN and say : hey, Iraq has a horrible human rights record, the time to act is now.

Unfortunately that is not the way the UN works. As you've outlined, the UN meets this kind of thinking with great skepticism. "Why should we, the UN, whose very members represent countries whose governments are atricious violators of human rights, do anything to support this precedent? The UN can't just intervene every time some local despot cracks a few skulls." I just don't see the UN lining up to rally against one of its own. I wish they would, but they don't. (Let us not forget for example how our European Allies did not want to intervene in Bosnia in the early 1990s because of Human Rights.)

Clearly the US had to use WMD as a reason for wiping Saddam. A precedent was already established in 1991 as part of the cease-fire. Besides, at the UN, Human Rights violations really aren't sufficient grounds for intervention. Although they SHOULD be.

In the case of Iraqi Freedom, the ends DO justify the means, even if no great stockpiles of CBRN are found. (Although as I've demonstrated earlier, Iraq does have a CBRN capability.)

Actually the message the US has sent is a good one : fly straight and narrow, or you're next. The era of the US turning the other way while civillians suffer is coming to a close.

C'jais

05-10-2003, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
Actually the message the US has sent is a good one : fly straight and narrow, or you're next. The era of the US turning the other way while civillians suffer is coming to a close.

In a way, I hope you're right.

Do you believe the humanitarian reasons was the justification used by the Bush administration all along? They didn't start using it until the very end, you know.

Dagobahn Eagle

05-10-2003, 05:52 PM

Now humanitarian aid is important to Bush?

Then why doesn't the States give more in financial aid to other countries? There's some percentage number estabilishing how much a country should give in humanitarian aid. The USA is still below that percentage.

If humanitarianism (is that a word?;)) matters so much to Bush, why doesn't he give more money to developing countries?

Wilhuf

05-10-2003, 09:49 PM

The US was the number one donor of financial aid to Afghanistan before September 11th. But that didn't stop Usama Bin Laden (a very wealthy Saudi) from launching terror attacks from Afghanistan. Nor did it stop the Taliban from giving Al-Qa'ida safe harbor. Financial aid only goes so far to combat terror.

Besides, why should the US pay tribute to petty dictators like Saddam Hussein?

The US did bring up the Baath human rights record, but certainly could have made it a more prominent centerpiece in their case at the UN.

As I said, I doubt the UN particularly cared enough to actually take out the Hussein leadership because of their human rights record.

Dagobahn Eagle

05-10-2003, 10:25 PM

The US was the number one donor of financial aid to Afghanistan before September 11th. But that didn't stop Usama Bin Laden (a very wealthy Saudi) from launching terror attacks from Afghanistan. Nor did it stop the Taliban from giving Al-Qa'ida safe harbor. Financial aid only goes so far to combat terror.

Besides, why should the US pay tribute to petty dictators like Saddam Hussein?
You got me wrong here. I'm talking about humanitarian aid in general, such as fighting HIV in other countries, for example. You do realize that you could probably save as many lives that way as you claim to be saving in Iraq?

Let's say 1000 people die a month under Saddam. So if your argument to invade Iraq is that youo save 1000 people per month, why don't you just give aid to Ethiopia and save 1000+ people per month?

You still save 1000 lives per month, but without killing anyone. But then again, most people are convinced humanitarian reasons were not the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq (neither was WMDs, most likely, as Bush should have figured Saddam didn't have too many of them).

Breton

05-10-2003, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
The US was the number one donor of financial aid to Afghanistan before September 11th. But that didn't stop Usama Bin Laden (a very wealthy Saudi) from launching terror attacks from Afghanistan. Nor did it stop the Taliban from giving Al-Qa'ida safe harbor. Financial aid only goes so far to combat terror.

Besides, why should the US pay tribute to petty dictators like Saddam Hussein?

We were never talking about giving money to dictators and bad regimes. But refugees and people who are starving, or people dying of diseases due to dirty drinking water, they need help, don't you think?

BTW, USA has to increase their foreign aid by seven times to reach the UN target.

Dagobahn Eagle

05-10-2003, 11:52 PM

USA has to increase their foreign aid by seven times to reach the UN target.
That's what I'm saying. My point, again, is that if the USA took the money they spent on invading Iraq and spent it on humanitarian aid to developing nations, they'd save far more lives and not even kill anyone.

Which they didn't, which rules out humanitarianism (if that's a word:rolleyes:) as the primary reason for invading Iraq.

So the reasons are:

WMDs: Which he didn't have. Invalid statement.
Humanitarian aid: Which could be applied to other countries instead of Iraq, and a lot easier too. I guess the reparation costs ($80 billions?) could have saved, what, houndreds of thousands from starvation by planting crops, digging canals and wells for water supply, and building hospitals and schools to make the inhabitants self-sufficient. Courtesy of GWB, with no foreign protests.
Arresting or killing Saddam: Which is hardly a reason for going to war. If a desperado is holed up in a saloon with 40 people and you know 10 of them are going to get killed when you storm the saloon, will you still do it, or try to come up with an alternative solution?
Democracy: But this, neither, was the main reason, was it? This, however, comes the closest to being a good reason for an invasion.
Other reasons (oil, revenge, etc.): These are, to me, conspiracy theories and don't hold true.

Breton

05-11-2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Democracy: But this, neither, was the main reason, was it? This, however, comes the closest to being a good reason for an invasion.

But is it fair to invade another country only because they have another ruling system than your own? Even dictatorship has its good sides. It isn't fair to occupy another country because you don't like the way they are ruled in this country.

Dagobahn Eagle

05-11-2003, 12:46 AM

I said it was ALMOST a reason to invade, not an actual reason.

We need more pro-war people in these forums. This debate is like "5 posts against war, 1 for war, 5 posts bashing the 1 post for war, then 2 more against war, 1 more for war...":)

munik

05-11-2003, 01:55 AM

Hey, I'm for war. But I don't see much use in the debate.

Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. We do it because we can, and because no one can stop us. I can't really articulate that statement into 5 different essay replies, so I don't try.

I think that Oil is the simple reason. I didn't used to believe that, and if you look at some post I made back in February, I discounted it as a reason. Then I started looking into how the oil industry works. Then I started looking into past conflicts and disputes over oil. Then I started to understand how serious the governments, NGO's and transnational corporations see oil. Oil is more than just the crap that makes our cars go.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I said it was ALMOST a reason to invade, not an actual reason.

I know that, I just commented other's belief about democracy being an actual reason.

We need more pro-war people in these forums. This debate is like "5 posts against war, 1 for war, 5 posts bashing the 1 post for war, then 2 more against war, 1 more for war..."

I agree, we should get TheHobGoblin, Father Tourqe and CagedCrado in here, those would make the debate so much more fun.

griff38

06-01-2003, 12:08 PM

Well it's been 11 weeks and no WMD.

Blair sighted as late as 72 hours before the war that Sadam could launch his WMD within 45 minutes. But now says they believe this info was wrong. Duh.

George Tenet CIA Director admits now they had no proof and were going on good "faith" from their international sources. Which they now admit were uh............. wrong.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says all WMD were destroyed by the Iraqis on the eve of the war. Anybody got the balls to say they believe this idiot?

Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfelds step & fetch boy admitted on TV this week the only reason they pushed they WMD issue was because they needed a "good war banner" to inspire people.

I sure hope these fools at least, criminals at worst pay for this disaster.

Dagobahn Eagle

06-02-2003, 02:20 AM

Why do all the pro-war people diss the United Nations for not wanting to invade Iraq anyway? The United Nations were formed after World War II to promote peace, not "wars of liberation". The world was devastated by the destruction the 5-years global war had caused, and wanted an organization that could aqcuire peace by cooperation. Not by bullying of allies, violation of the unwritten freedom of speech laws, and general bashing of allies.

US Pro war: We want a war, for these reasons *lists reasons*
Anti-war: *Read reasons* We disagree, and these are our reasons. *Lists reasons*
US Pro-war: *Without reading AW's reasons* PANSIES!! *general bashing and totally wrong analogies, ie. 'we helped you during WW2 so you do as we tell you to'*

Sigh.

munik

06-02-2003, 02:45 AM

Not finding any weapons still don't mean nuthin. If Twinkies were the current evil, we would use that excuse to attack another country. As it is now, we just replaced "communist" with "terrorist" as our current evil. WMD are bad in the terrorism sense, so that was our excuse. Do you think we could just say "because we want to"? Greed is unbecoming, so admitting to it as our reason to impose our will on others just isn't going to happen.

And the rest of the world can remember the truth for twenty generations, but no one in the States will give a sh*t. They can rub it in our face with one hand while the other hand continues to accept our money and achievements, and pray they aren't next.

If it was so terrible, such a wrongful act, then when can I expect the righteous retribution? What's that? Never? Ok, just let me pencil that in my day planner, "app: Country to defy the U.S. at Never o'clock, on the 10th day of Never, 200Never".

Sure, it sucks. I would empathize, but I have trouble with that considering I'm an American. Kinda hard to be mad at myself because I live in a country who follows the foriegn policy of "Do whatever the hell I want".

Is it right? Who knows? I'd say it's right for me, but it really isn't much of a factor in my life. It would be a factor if I lived in Iraq, but we've already covered my geographic location. So as it stands, it's just a passing news fad, maybe in five years I can watch informational war shows on the History Channel, or from here on out to eternity I can have it thrown in my face anytime I have a discussion with someone who resides in another country.

Dagobahn Eagle

06-02-2003, 04:05 PM

If it was so terrible, such a wrongful act, then when can I expect the righteous retribution? What's that? Never? Ok, just let me pencil that in my day planner, "app: Country to defy the U.S. at Never o'clock, on the 10th day of Never, 200Never".
Hmm, the problem is that the rest of the world cannot do that. Sadly.

Sure, it sucks. I would empathize, but I have trouble with that considering I'm an American. Kinda hard to be mad at myself because I live in a country who follows the foriegn policy of "Do whatever the hell I want".
Why would you be mad at yourself? Unless you stereotype, you can't say all Americans are pro-war.

Is it right? Who knows? I'd say it's right for me, but it really isn't much of a factor in my life. It would be a factor if I lived in Iraq, but we've already covered my geographic location. So as it stands, it's just a passing news fad, maybe in five years I can watch informational war shows on the History Channel, or from here on out to eternity I can have it thrown in my face anytime I have a discussion with someone who resides in another country.
There are going to be discussions on it in USA to, believe me. I've been trough dozens.

griff38

06-24-2004, 03:23 PM

Well it's been over a year since I started this thread.

Plenty enough time to find something. Can anybody site a single report of a WMD?

I swear you can hear a pin drop.

Vagabond

10-11-2004, 07:49 AM

Well, Wilhuf and I had debated this topic privately before the U.S. invasion, and he's a good friend of mine. But on this topic we strongly disagree.

While I did agree at the time that Saddam was someone who the world could do without, it was the reckless way in which the lead-up to the invasion was carried that I so strongly objected to. Specifically:

1. That Bush had plans to invade Iraq before the attacks of September 11th, 2001.

2. That Bush's arrogance and lack of diplomacy toward our allies and the U.N. alienated the U.S. around the world.

3. That Bush unilaterally decided to invade before the weapons inspectors had completed their search for WMD.

4. That Bush did not invade Iraq with the overwhelming force needed, not only to conquer the Iraqi military, but to maintain security.

The concerns I voiced before the invasion were:

1. If no WMD are found, there will be an outcry of illegitimacy, that the U.S. illegally overthrew the government of a sovereign nation that posed no immediate threat to either the U.S., any of its allies, or any of Iraq's neighbors. This came to pass.

2. That the U.S. would find itself essentially going it alone in Iraq, with very little help from the rest of the world. This came to pass.

3. That the U.S. would find itself fighting a Vietname-style guerilla war, with no easy exit strategy. Thus far, this too has come to pass.

I know my comments may appear to some as hindsight, but this are the very concerns I pointed out prior to the invasion.

There was a right way to do this, and a wrong way. The best analogy I can think of is this: suppose you needed money from the bank to remodel your house. The right way would be to go to the bank, take the time to fill out all the paperwork, and obtain a loan. The wrong way is to march into the bank and shove a shotgun up the teller's nose and tell them to fill up a bag with cash from the vault - this is essentially what Bush did - do things the wrong way. And now that he's found himself in a mess in his remodeling project, he just can't seem to understand why no one from the bank will come over and help him out. Bush just seems to lack any social awareness. Leaders of nations are no different than anyone else - if you don't possess the interpersonal skills treat people respectfully, then those people aren't going to lift a finger to help you. Rather, they're going to enjoy sitting back and watching you fail, which is exactly what I would be doing were I the leader of one of the nations that Bush has alienated the U.S. from.

To make matters worse, now that Bush hasn't found any WMD in Iraq, his transparently obvious contingency plan was to try to make a vaporous connection between Iraq and Bin Laden, has been shown to not be true. Which leaves Bush with the only justification being that Sadam was a bad guy that needed to go. That's it. If we were just going to start invading countries with bad guys, I can think of more worthy candidates than some 3rd-rate dictator without WMD.

And as a result of all these events, particularly all of Bush's excuses for the reasons he invaded Iraq, and his failure to accept any of the responsibility for the rush to war, Bush's administration has virtually zero credibility with the rest of the world.

And sadly, the U.S., which once was perhaps viewed as more an ideal of democracy, success, and freedom around the world, is now loathed as the American Empire, invader and occupier, and hypocrite that holds other nations accountable to laws that it ignores. Bush has strongly lead the U.S. in the wrong direction.

Elijah

10-11-2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Breton
If they do not find any WoMDs in Iraq, Bush has made war on false reasons, he has also lied to his people and to the whole world. If there is no WoMDs in Iraq, the only right thing for Bush to do would be to resign. The CIA, Clinton (who most of you democrats voted for) and many other people, TOLD Bush that Saddam had WMDs, bush didnt lie to anything, if anything, he was lied to. Bush acted on perhaps false information, but how was he to know it was false? and besides, they have already found weapons that were illegal to have according to the UN.

Vagabond

10-11-2004, 10:08 AM

The weapons you're referring to may be the missiles that had a greater range than those permitted by the peace treaty at the end of the first gulf war. Those weapons were found by the weapons inspectors.

Bush kept insisting that Sadam disarm his WMD, and was getting impatient. The irony is that Sadam had no WMD to disarm from, thus showing that Bush had determined to invade regarldess of the outcome of the weapons inspectors, which is probably why he decided to unilaterally invade. I'm sure if Bush's daughters were required to be fighting on the ground in Iraq, he'd have shown more caution before wrecking over 1000 U.S. families who's loved ones won't be returning home alive.

toms

10-12-2004, 06:49 AM

Most of the evidence the CIA, MI5 etc.. gave to the governments was flimsy, unsubstantiated, uncorroberated and most definately not certain. That is fine. Most intelligence is. That is their job.

The problem is that somewhere between it leaving the spies and exiting bush's mouth it got converted frompossibilities to certainties.

Nothing is ever certain in intelligence, but this was certainly far less certain than usual (:D ) and shouldn't have been taken as fact.

If you actually look into the evidence you find that it was from a very few "compromised" sources who played the US to their own advantage, but the contradictory evidence from more reliable sources somehow never got the same emphasis. Almost as if they had already made up their mind, and were now just looking for evidence that backep up their conclusion. hmmm... oddl that that is exactly what a whole lot of us SAID they were doing. Silly old us...

Its like me telling Vagabond that "i think i heard somewhere that ZDawg may be ugly" and him standing up and telling everyone "ZDawg is ugly!".

----------
PS/ Evidence is comping to light today that all the stuff in saddam's nuclear power programme that was BEING tagged and monitored by observers BEFORE bush ordered them out disappeared during the war when the facilities were looted. SO instead of a few nuclear tools we knew the location and use of we now have a few nuclear tools that we don't know anything about. Way to improve our safety there georgie...

Vagabond

10-12-2004, 08:18 AM

This just confirmed from a reliable source - ZDawg is ugly! :cool:

Shok_Tinoktin

10-17-2004, 07:27 PM

Hasn't the White House come out as saying that there were no weapons of mass destruction?

That being said, I am in fact, pro-war. I feel that the removing of the Saddam Hussien regime is an important change. Maybe he was not as dangerous as some other dictators, but his location is able to have a huge impact. As far as presenting possibilities as fact. It goes a lot farther to rally a nation to say that "This guy has weapons, we need to get him!" than to say "erm... well... maybe?" Basic debate training says to never use qualifiers. As for humanitarian issues, the war can have a dominoe effect if it is treated properly, where bringing democracy can be spread farther than just Iraq.

Vagabond

10-18-2004, 04:54 AM

What you've just stated is defined as "lying". So much for bringing integrity back to the White House.

And if you're so gung-ho on Iraq, why don't you volunteer to go fight? Nothing's stopping you.

toms

10-18-2004, 08:58 AM

so we are now on bush's crusade to bring democracy to these countries, whether they want it or not?

Tony Blair publicly said that Saddam could stay IF he turned over his weapons... so (at least on the british part) bringing democracy and humanitarian reasons were never the reason.
He NOW says that, even though we didn't find WMD the war was right because it brought democracy and for humanitarian reasons.

Is it any wonder people don't trust politicians and their ever changing excuses for the reason for the war?

I think i said before the war that
(a) I didn't believe WMD was the reason for the war.
(b) If they came right out and said it was for humanitarian reasons then i MIGHT support it
(c) However, it would undermine the authority of the UN
(d) and increase the risk of terrorism and tension in the region
(e) and these might not be worth the humanitarian benefits

I'd still stand be ALL of that now. Now either i was psychic, or i have access to classified documents, or it was obvious to anyone who cared that the WMD was an excuse. And i'm pretty sure it wasn't the first two.

On the whole (so far) i don't think that the humanitarian benefits have outweighed the damage to the UN, the increase in terrorism and the increase in anti western feeling that the war has caused.

Kofi Annan said in an interview that the UN is its member states, it is only as good or bad as they make it. This is true and is something you have to accept about democracy. Does the UN need reform? Yes. Is it the only thing we have? yes. Is it better than unilateral action? definately.

Did you know that the Iraqis only obstructed 4% of weapon inspector visits. Those were all in palaces or other places of government.
The reason they gave was that they felt CIA agents were using the trips to spy on them. The US head of the survey teams has confirmed that CIA agents were using the trips to spy on them. Hmmm...
The inspections were supposed to prevent the development of WMD. The inspections seem to have prevented the development of WMD. Hmmm...
Inspectors were monitoring nuclear power plant material before they were ordered out by GW... it is now looted and "in the wild".

griff38

01-14-2005, 03:38 AM

It not official yet, but I love to be a " I TOLD YOU SO."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/politics/13arms.html?oref=login

toms

01-14-2005, 08:17 AM

can i be a "ME TOO!!"??? :D

Wilhuf

03-11-2005, 09:38 PM

Yeah, no WMDs found.

Oh, BTW the turnout rates for the 30 January election in Iraq were higher than many localities in the 2004 US presidential election. This is true even in the 'non-participating' Sunni areas of Iraq.

I can't imagine anyone unwilling to risk their own life to win another person's freedom would ever really understand the implications here.

No anti-war/isolationist can say 'oh yeah, well, Iraq could have had free open elections with better turnout than in the US without US intervention to back it up.'

Flame on...

SkinWalker

03-11-2005, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
Yeah, no WMDs found. They're all in Syria.

Evidence?

And, yes, the Iraqi election turn out was better than could be expected.

SkinWalker

03-15-2005, 12:09 AM

The same way we, the U.S. and Europe, stood by and watched (and are watching) a dozen or so other ruthless regimes commit attrocities and tolerate inhumane conditions for their citizens. Iraq was no more or less significant than most of them. Indeed, the Iraqi invasion was a good idea for the wrong reasons at the wrong time.

All but abandoning our war on terrorism in favor of a military ground war equates to treason from my perspective. Over 1500 American lives and untold billions of dollars would have been better spent in subduing Al Qaeda rather than giving them a reason on increase their membership as well as a place to call a battleground. All we did was legitimize these cowardly terrorists to many of the world who are fed up with what they see as Western domination and threat.

I stand by everything I've ever said in this and other forums: George W. Bush is a traitor to the American people and has dishonored the American Flag. His grasp on power in this nation is rooted not in the popular faith that he is competent, but rather the need to live up to perceived religious obligations of the so-called religious right.

There are a lot of people that think the last election was mostly about the war on Iraq, but I believe it was mostly about religion. And GW Bush is one of hteir cult leaders.

Bush supporters remind me of believers in UFOs, alien abductions, ESP and all that sort of thing. They suffer from severe confirmation bias and as soon as physical evidence cannot be demonstrated to support their core claims, they invent hypotheses that avoid testing.

The Bush administration is nothing but an embarrassment to over 200 years of American spirit and true patriotism.

Wilhuf

03-15-2005, 06:55 PM

All but abandoning our war on terrorism

The war in Iraq is an extension of the war on terrorism, wether you want it or believe it or not. Don't you realize that US Task Force 626 is engaged directly in a battle against Al-Qa'ida elements in Iraq?

The premise that fighting terrorists in Iraq causes them to somehow spontaneously generate is erroneous and inconsistent. Talk about ' inventing hypotheses that avoid testing!'

The successful turnout at the 30 Jan election demonstrated that the Iraqi public did not accept the legitimacy of Iraqi terrorist goals. The majority of Iraqis bought in to the idea of self-determination through an electoral system, brought by the US, rather than the rule of the gun. And they did so under constant threat of attack from cowardly terrorists who would do anything, and fortunately failed, to destroy the election.

The US isn't forcing naive terrorists to drive car bombs into groups of school children who have flocked to get candy from US soldiers.

When would an invasion of Iraq have been 'good'?

The same way we, the U.S. and Europe, stood by and watched (and are watching) a dozen or so other ruthless regimes commit attrocities and tolerate inhumane conditions for their citizens.

If you are refering to Iran, Sudan, North Korea and Somalia yes, it's regretable. I'm sure there are other regimes that should be on the chopping block. Why for instance does the US tolerate the blatant lack of free politics in Saudi Arabia? All Saudi has managed to do is elect a few local neighborhood politicians. Whoop-de-doo!! It's really inconsistent. But the US cannot fight this many villains all at once, in my opinion. One-regime-at-a-time. Maybe two. Especially if the continental European powers refuse to commit militarily.

As to Bush somehow representing a religous cult, I doubt it. I think his campaign were successful in packaging him as somehow 'compatible' with conservative religious ideals. I don't believe he is actually religious to the point of culthood. Years ago, the man was pulled over for drunken driving for crying out loud.

And I can guarantee you that Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld do not believe in UFOs and ESP.

:beam2:

SkinWalker

03-15-2005, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
The war in Iraq is an extension of the war on terrorism, wether you want it or believe it or not.

This point isn't a matter of belief, that's the problem. Supporters of Bush and his cronies believe in all sorts of things. The fact is that the terrorists we are engaging 1) didn't exist prior to the United States invasion, and 2) the vast majority of the anti-coalition aggressors in Iraq do not consider themselves Al Qaeda.

I find it utterly amazing that there are people who willingly accept the claim that the Iraqi invasion is "an extension of the war on terrorism." It clearly is not.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
Don't you realize that US Task Force 626 is engaged directly in a battle against [b]Al-Qa'ida elements in Iraq?

The premise that fighting terrorists in Iraq causes them to somehow spontaneously generate is erroneous and inconsistent.

"Spontaneously generate?" I think you've been playing far too many first-person shooters. As I remember the regions of Eastern Iraq and Kuwait, it is very easy to travel without coming into contact with anything or anybody. I would think that this applies to much of the region. Couple this with borders that cannot be secured at Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran, even Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and it's easy to see that "spontaneous generation" need not apply. Particularly when they've had two full years to migrate to this new Meca of a battlefield with the Devil of the West.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
[B]Talk about ' inventing hypotheses that avoid testing!'

That many of the insurgents our troops are facing are from outside Iraq and that few are confirmed to be Al Qaeda is an observation, not an hypothesis.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
[B]The successful turnout at the 30 Jan election demonstrated that the Iraqi public did [b]not accept the legitimacy of Iraqi terrorist goals.

I wouldn't disagree with that. Not a bit. It's clear that the insurgency in Iraq is a minority, albeit a very vocal one. It's clear that they are being incouraged by Al Qaeda connections, the vast majority of which did not exist prior to the U.S. invasion. It's clear that our failure to properly secure the borders and properly obtain international support vis-a-vis a larger percentage of non-American troops but an unnecessary burden on the United States people -in money and lives. It's clear that a successful vote among the people is going to be a Pyrrhic victory.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
When would an invasion of Iraq have been 'good'?

After we completed the retaliation and extermination of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden was stopped. Surely you wouldn't argue that if we had applied the troops and money that we did to Iraq against Al Qaeda and its supporters that we would have done two things: 1) terrorism as we know it would have all but stopped; 2) international support for the United States would still be at the heights it was just after 9/11/2001.

Bin Laden must have been extremely happy that Bush and his cronies chose to put the majority of U.S. military in Iraq. If I were Bin Laden, I would have sent everyone I could spare to Iraq to act as agent provoceteurs and mobilize as many insurgent cells as possible. I would have disseminated word to Muslim radicals all over the middle east to encourage them to travel to Iraq, just as they do to Meca, but to engage the Infidels on holy ground.

Indeed, this appears to be what has happened. And you maintain that these terrorists were stockpiled by Saddam instead of the WMDs?

Belief.

Wilhuf

03-15-2005, 08:05 PM

But anticoaltion units in Iraq use terrorist tactics techniques and procedures against civillian and coalition military targets: car bombs, mortar attacks, roadside bombings, kidnappings, beheadings and assassinations. That makes them terrorists. Some of them are Al-Qa'ida, some of them are Baathists, some of them are just stupid kids who were enticed by the cash and have no ideological commitment. The war waged against these units is a war against terrorists.

Abu Zarqawi, the man villain in Iraq, was a terrorist before terrorism was cool. The war in Iraq didn't make him that way.

Now, the idea that terrorists migrate into new locales to wage Jihad is nothing new. It is certainly not a problem the US has somehow engendered.The terrorists in tribal northwest Pakistan are not indigenous to the safehavens they enjoy there.They infiltrated from around the globe.

We're on a spin cycle here. Same sh*t, different day.

SkinWalker

03-15-2005, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
As to Bush somehow representing a religous cult, I doubt it.

"During his presidential campaign, George W. Bush said he'd been `called' to seek higher office and talked openly about his faith"

"The atmosphere inside the White House, insiders say, is suffused with an aura of prayerfulness. There have always been Bible-study groups there; even the Clintonites had one. But the groups are everywhere now."

Originally posted by Wilhuf
I think his campaign were successful in packaging him as somehow 'compatible' with conservative religious ideals. I don't believe he is actually religious to the point of culthood.

"There's no question this is the most receptive White House to our concerns and to our perspective of any White House that I've dealt with, and I've dealt with every White House from Reagan on." --Rev. Richard Land a fanatic of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
Years ago, the man was pulled over for drunken driving for crying out loud.

During the 2000 election campaign when asked at a GOP candidate debate what philosphical or political thinker he looked up to, GW replied with Jesus Christ, "because he changed my heart." When asked to elaborate on the implications of this, Bush chose not to. In fact, he confessed that he could not say much more. "It's going to be hard to explain. When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the Savior, it changes your heart. It changes your life. And that's what happened to me."

This is one of the many things that Rove and the Bush campaign did to secure his position with the majority of Americans who consider themselves christians. These people were also told in their cult centers what candidates they were to vote for if they wanted god's favor. Bush won both elections on religious issues like abortion, not his ability to lead or his powerful insights in world politics.

He won on belief.

See this Frontline Special (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/view/)

Originally posted by Wilhuf
And I can guarantee you that Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld do not believe in UFOs and ESP.

You obviously either didn't actually read what I wrote closely, or you don't understand the concept of analogy. Or, more likely, you're attempting to divert from the analogy itself.

That you're still arguing the fallacy that the Iraqi Invasion is an "extension of the war on terrorism" is a testiment to the power of belief. The whole premise is petitio principii, a circular argument in which the so-called "war on terror" is used to justify the U.S. involvement in Iraq and the Iraq invasion is used to justify the so-called "war on terrror."

Terrorism against US Forces clearly did not exist prior to the invasion. Alleged terrorist camps that did exist in Iraq then were in the Kurdish controlled north and out of Saddam's influence. While a high-level Al-Qaeda member sought medical attention at an Iraqi hospital, it hardly demonstrates that Saddam was a supporter of Al Qaeda.

In the end, there was no justifiable reason for the United States to invade Iraq, particularly when we had another war to fight. The real war on terror.

Wilhuf

03-15-2005, 09:41 PM

I did not use the intervention in Iraq to 'justify' a war against terror. I stated that the global war on terror is now being waged in Iraq. The attacks of September 11th 2001 justify in my mind the war against terror. But I will not choose to ignore the acts of horror that terrorists in Iraq have committed.

I used concepts of democracy, self-determination and liberation as moral justification for the initial intervention in Iraq.

That terrorists have chosen to flock to Iraq has changed the political and ethical dynamic of the conflict. Once the 'insurgency' gathered steam after the coalition destroyed the core of the Iraqi military, the war in Iraq indeed evolved into a war against terror.

(Actually, I could imagine that removing Hussein from power was an act of anti-terror. Especially from the view of those who had been terrorized by him and his supporters.)

The notion that the US intervention caused the insurgency is flawed. Surviving Baath regime, Al Qa'ida, Al-Sunna, and foreign elements that prey on Iraqi nationalist sentiment have created the insurgency in Iraq. The insurgency exists because the surviving elements of an absolutist regime and foreign terrorists provide indoctrination, arms, supplies, funding, training and safehaven to conduct terrorist activities against the coaltion and civillians.

In 2003 I would not have fully accepted the idea that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terror. Today, to me, there is no doubt that current US operations in Iraq are part of the war on terror.

SkinWalker

03-15-2005, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
I did not use the intervention in Iraq to 'justify' a war against terror.

Actually, I wasn't necessarily referring to you directly but proponents of the invasion in general -though it does seem that you use the invasion to justify the so-called 'war on terror' even in your very last post above.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
I stated that the global war on terror is now being waged in Iraq.

Global? It seems localized to Iraq.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
The attacks of September 11th 2001 justify in my mind the war against terror.

Indeed. And that's what we should have done, waged a war on terror. Instead, we waged a war on Iraq, thus inspiring more guerrilla/terrorist attacks on U.S. interests there.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
But I will not choose to ignore the acts of horror that terrorists in Iraq have committed.

I wouldn't ignore any of the horror that anyone in Iraq has committed. To do so would demonstrate a willingness to overlook bad deeds of others.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
I used concepts of democracy, self-determination and liberation as moral justification for the initial intervention in Iraq.

Those concepts exist independent of military intervention and are not exclusive to Iraq and the people being oppressed by Saddam. I think we can agree that there are a dozen or so countries and cultures that face the same issue, even to degrees more significant than the people of Iraq. That the Iraqi people might have benefitted (and indeed appear to have so far) from U.S. military intervention isn't a debatable point. It's easy to see.

What is debatable is the timing. Abandoning the war on terror to the extent which Bush did to invade Iraq is treason. He's a traitor to the American people, particularly all those who lost friends & relatives in 9/11. He's a traitor to the servicemen and women who gave and are giving their lives in Iraq right now.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
That terrorists have chosen to flock to Iraq has changed the political and ethical dynamic of the conflict. Once the 'insurgency' gathered steam after the coalition destroyed the core of the Iraqi military, the war in Iraq indeed evolved into a war against terror.

You do see what you're saying, right? You're making my point for me.

Originally posted by Wilhuf
The notion that the US intervention caused the insurgency is flawed.

Really? Why didn't the insurgents and terrorists get busy during Saddam's regime? What caused them to want to start now? It doesn't take a degree in political science or military history to see that.

The insurgency exists because the surviving elements of an absolutist regime and foreign terrorists provide indoctrination, arms, supplies, funding, training and safehaven to conduct terrorist activities against the coaltion and civillians. [/B][/QUOTE]

If we would have "rid the world of terrorism" or at least destroyed Al Qaeda prior to going into Iraq, we would have had far less problem with insurgency for two reasons: 1) there wouldn't have been a terrorist infrastructure of funding and arms to supply with logistics and personnel; 2) the U.S. would have had considerable more credibility with the rest of the world community and thus far more troop strength and logistical support in the coalition.

Hell, I would have supported a war with Iraq unders such conditions. I'd like to see us be able to conduct other operations elsewhere in the world, Sudan comes immediately to mind. But it ain't happening until we can afford to do it.

The bottom line: U.S. operations in Iraq does not equate to the so-called 'war on terror.' The latter operation is barely hanging in there in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Wilhuf

03-15-2005, 10:17 PM

Abandoning the war on terror to the extent which Bush did to invade Iraq is treason.

But there are more US soldiers in Afghanistan today than at any point since 9/11.

What caused [the insurgents] to want to start now?

The surviving Baathist elements, as I said, provided indoctrination to insurgents. Simply put, the Baathists are pissed about being kicked out of their positions of power and prestige. So they resort to terrorism, and encourage Iraqis to resort to terrorism to retaliate. The US footprint in Iraq, Iraqi officials, and Iraqi civillians are their target. It's definitely not rocket science.

SkinWalker

03-15-2005, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Wilhuf
But there are more US soldiers in Afghanistan today than at any point since 9/11.

And there could be oh so many more. There's about 17,000 right now... wasn't there more last year?

Originally posted by Wilhuf
The surviving Baathist elements, as I said, provided indoctrination to insurgents. Simply put, the Baathists are pissed about being kicked out of their positions of power and prestige. So they resort to terrorism, and encourage Iraqis to resort to terrorism to retaliate. The US footprint in Iraq, Iraqi officials, and Iraqi civillians are their target. It's definitely not rocket science.

Definitely not. Then we appear to be in agreement. The US invasion of Iraq created a situation of terrorism and insurgency that wouldn't have existed had we not invaded.

Dagobahn Eagle

03-16-2005, 12:11 PM

But there are more US soldiers in Afghanistan today than at any point since 9/11.
Yup, and there'd better be. Only 11,000 people were sent into Afghanistan originally, and that two whole months after 9/11. As Moore said,

Two months? The man who attacked America and killed 3,000 people was given a two months headstart?

Bush didn't do nearly half of what he should have done in Afghanistan.

But I will not choose to ignore the acts of horror that terrorists in Iraq have committed.
Listen to what SkinWalker said: Don't ignore any acts of horror. What about the US sanctions and bombing against Iraq? 500 000 civilian and military casualties. And do you know that in the war of 1991, the USA overthrew the government of Kuwait and installed a dictator? Did you know that when the USA "liberated" Afghanistan, they inserted a President instead of holding fair elections (a President who, "coincidentally", was an former high levelemployee in Dick Cheney's comany Unocal?). Did you know that the USA repeatedly before has invaded democratic countries and installed dictators (I'm not saying Afghanistan and Iraq are democracies, I'm saying that for example Chile was before the USA took them in the 1970's).

PS: I'm not sure if that was what you meant, SkinWalker, and I'm sorry if that sounded like I was putting words in your mouth.